Do intellectuals make a difference in policy?

Great Debates
1

A cynic might say no, not at all:
Intellectual debate often appears more as a kind of decoration rather than a substantive force in politics and policy. Politics appears to be more about politicians seeking to win votes and interest groups who can supply the means to win votes (either money or grass-roots muscle). Whichever groups have power hire or find intellectuals to push their line. There is always an ample supply of intellectuals and academics who will defend any position (they may or may not be sincere). The public can’t distinguish valid from invalid arguments so all the debate just cancels out: the battle of ideas merely reflects the balance of power.

A less cynical view ( and closer to mine) might be that intellectuals have influence but only if they are sufficiently united on some issue. There are some ideas that are so powerful that it is almost impossible for competent people to deny them. So you simply won’t get an adequate supply of experts willing to oppose them. Also the very existence of experts from different backgrounds and politics backing the idea will lend it credibility. Even quite powerful interest groups can do relatively little.

Two examples:

1)Evolution: There is a massive,well organized movement to which wants to take evolution out of public schools and replace it with creationism. If polls are to be believed a substantial chunk of the population supports them. Despite this there are hardly any schools where creationism is taught and ,though some schools might not teach enough evolution, no school where teaching evolution is expressly forbiden. This is because it is almost impossible for serious intellectuals whatever their politics to oppose evolution.

  1. Free trade: Though there is less of a consensus here, there is virtual unanimity among economists that free trade is usually a good thing and a substantial unanimity among commentators and editorialists. This must be one of the few issues where the NYT agrees with the WSJ. So despite meagre support for free trade among the public and lots of powerful interest groups with a reason to oppose it the US is moving slowly in the direction of ever freer trade.

If my basic hypothesis is right then intellectuals should spend less time fighting other intellectuals on issues which they will never resolve (like abortion) and more time trying to find areas of agreement where they can usefully present a united front and influence policy. In other words the important battle is not so much between different sets of intellectuals but between intellecuals on the one hand and interest groups and the general public on the other. Intellectual trench-warfare will only mean that the issue will be decided by the balance of power between interest groups. Intellectual consensus can be a powerful independent force in its own right.

Without wishing to start debates on the specific issues let me suggest three potential areas where I suspect intellectuals of different political views have some reasonable grounds for reaching a consensus.

1)Vouchers for school education (especially for poor parents): I tentatively support them and so do lots of inner-city parents (but not the general public). I already see some straws in the wind to indicate that some people on the left and centre are becoming more sympathetic (eg a long story in Salon which supported Edison in its battle in San Franscisco)

2)Cost-benefit analysis for regulation: In fact there already exists a joint effort by AEI and Brookings which is a good example of the kind of consensus-building I am talking about.

  1. Ending the war on drugs:
    There is already lots of support on both left and right for this one.

What do you think? I would like to know your thoughts on the general question as well as my ideas. I probably won’t have the time to write too much in this thread but I will try to read everything.

2

This one’s a toughy. While I do agree that there are a substantial number of people pushing creativity, I’d like to believe that the majority of the folks know better. If that’s the case, the politicians might just be pandering to the majority.

In concept, free trade seems like a good idea. I’m afraid I’m not familiar enough with all of the minor issues to make a final stand.

I am adamant in my disapproval of vouchers for every student. I might be willing to get behind a trial that gave them only to students who were unable to attend the “good schools in town.” Everytime some politician pulls the “It will help the inner city youth escape their poor schools”, I want to say “Cool, then give them only to inner city youth.”

I’ve only begun studying this, but it does appear intriguing on the surface. Of course, who determines the cost and who determines the benefit? That’s a very big question, in my mind. Also, regulating regulation:D could present enourmous overhead.

You’ve got my vote. I do think treatment should still be an easily available option.

3

Arrgh! I don’t want this to degenerate into a policy discussion on the examples I gave.:wink: Like I said they were just examples and I am more interested in the general issue of the role intellectuals play in policy-making.

Anyway:
“Of course, who determines the cost and who determines the benefit?”
This is a very reasonable question and cost-benefit analysis is not an exact science and it depends on subjective judgments and assumptions to some extent. However some regulations c/b analysis will be so clear-cut that even under a variety of assumptions you will be a able to make a clear-cut decision about whether the benefits justify the costs. This is where c/b analysis is most powerful.

4

Sorry for the misunderstanding. When you said said you wanted thoughts on the general question and your ideas, I thought ideas referred to the three topics.

In general, I do think intellectuals can and do influence policy. Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of them in the some of the sectors that could use them the most (politics comes to mind). I still think they can make a difference; sometimes the “12th man on the field” has a great impact on what happens in the game.

5

“When you said said you wanted thoughts on the general question and your ideas, I thought ideas referred to the three topics.”
My fault:the phrasing was unclear.

By “my idea” I meant mainly the idea that intellectuals are only effective when they present a united front.

“sometimes the “12th man on the field” has a great impact on what happens in the game.”
Are you a cricket fan by any chance or is there a twelth man concept in some other sport as well (soccer?)?

6

Here in the USA, the “12th man” is used to denote the home team’s fans in our version of football (the kind that doesn’t have a lot to do with feet). :slight_smile:

As you seem to have properly guessed, I was implying that intellectuals can have a positive effect, even when they are not the ones in power.

7

Good question, CP.

I think intellectuals can have a huge effect. Two caveats:

– it may take a long time

– the intellectuals’ impact may or may not be beneficial.

E.g., the American Constitution grew out of years of intellectual discussion and debate by the Founding Fathers. OTOH Communism was hatched by intellectuals Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, et. al.

This issues CP lists seem to me to be ones where intellectuals are having a gradual effect, hopefully in a positive direction.

8

CP, I’m not sure your examples are adequate to back up your argument. In particular, it’s not very clear from them just what you mean by “intellectuals” or the “influence” of intellectuals. There is often a divide between the general trend of popular opinion and the opinions of most “policy pundits”, but in talking about that divide you can’t ignore the influence of powerful interests that employ the policy pundits.

You can’t reduce the situation to a disinterested group of enlightened intellectuals gradually bringing light to the darkness of the manipulative politicians and the ignorant public. The “intellectuals” are inevitably entangled in the political manipulation, in all parts of the political spectrum. As you point out, many policy pundits will say whatever their employers want them to say. If all or most of them happen to be saying the same thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a true intellectual consensus on the issue; it may just mean that all or most of the employers are unanimous about which position serves their interests. (When it comes to economic as opposed to social issues, I think the political spectrum of the major media is a lot narrower than you suppose: both the NYT and the WSJ are largely corporate-supported, as are both Brookings and the AEI.)

That’s not to argue that I don’t believe there can be such a thing as an intellectual consensus on any issue, or that there aren’t intellectuals who are willing to speak their minds even if the boss doesn’t want to hear it. I just tend to think that the “united opinions” of intellectuals that get media attention in spite of widespread disagreement with them among the “masses” are the ones that the “powerful interests” either have no quarrel with or actively support.

To look at your examples from this perspective, without getting into my own opinions on the issues themselves:

  • Evolution: There is indeed a solid intellectual consensus in favor of evolution. Among the employers that support the policy punditry, there’s no good reason to oppose it; the major news media aren’t supported by fundamentalist young-earth creationists, after all.

  • Free trade: As Collounsbury and I have been discussing on the “Protestors” thread, there is indeed widespread agreement among most economists that free trade is a good thing for economic development in the long term. Corporate interests that own media outlets and buy advertising from them stand to make a good deal of money from trade liberalization, so naturally they are anxious to spread the word about this opinion. There’s also widespread agreement among most economists that free trade can have painful transition costs in the short term (which is what most anti-free-trade people are concerned about). We hear a lot less about that part of the “intellectual consensus” from the policy pundits.

  • School vouchers: I think you’re somewhat off the mark on this one: I don’t see much evidence for an emerging “intellectual consensus” on vouchers, and I don’t think one Salon article necessarily means that there is.

  • Cost-benefit analysis required for governmental regulation: Corporate wet dream. Naturally there is going to be a huge push for a favorable media consensus on this.

  • Ending the war on drugs: Given the overwhelming evidence for its ineffectiveness, and the fact that the media are generally more liberal on social than on economic issues, I’m not surprised to see this opinion emerging. I don’t think major corporate interests have much of a stake in the issue one way or the other: there’s money to be made from prisons, but there’ll also be money to be made from rehab programs, not to mention medical applications of marijuana. There is also a good deal of popular support for this idea.

So I think your question “Can intellectuals influence policy in spite of popular resistance, political infighting, and the opposition of powerful interests?” is a good one, but it’s not what your examples are illustrating. The issues you bring up, I think, are more accurately described by the question “Can intellectuals with the support or acquiescence of powerful interests influence policy?”, and the answer is, not surprisingly, “yes”.

9

Kimstu mentioned “corporate” several times, perhaps implying that corporations have great power. She says the question should be, “Can intellectuals with the support or acquiescence of powerful interests influence policy?” I would guess that by “powerful interests” she may have meant to focus on “powerful corporate interests.”

Here’s a list of major changes that occurred in the USA during the last 50 years. Each of these was promoted by particular intellectuals. None of them was supported by corporate interests; in fact some were actively opposed by corporate interests.

  1. Voting rights for minorities
  2. School integration
  3. Greater acceptance of gays
  4. Litigation explosion
  5. Growth of home schooling
  6. Deterioration of inner city schools
  7. Acceptance of unmarried parenthood
  8. Abortion rights
  9. Miranda warning and other legal reforms
  10. Environmentalism
  11. Cessation of nuclear power plant construction
  12. Increased availability of higher education
  13. Reducted use of the death penalty
  14. Growth in government regulation and spending
  15. Medicare
  16. Disabled rights
10

december: Here’s a list of major changes that occurred in the USA during the last 50 years. Each of these was promoted by particular intellectuals.

december, I’m a little puzzled as to how this relates to the present debate. Which of these changes are you asserting were significantly influenced (not just “promoted”) by the “united opinion” of “intellectuals”, and on what evidence? (And can you please tell me exactly which “particular intellectuals” went on record as advocating the deterioration of inner-city schools???)

11

“I think the political spectrum of the major media is a lot narrower than you suppose: both the NYT and the WSJ are largely corporate-supported, as are both Brookings and the AEI.)”
I think you are exaggerating the degree of corporate influence on centre-left institutions like the NYT and the Brookings. They both oppose lots of stuff which corporations might want like big tax cuts particularly big tax cuts for corporations. The NYT in particular opposes things like loosening environmental laws to help energy companies.
Many of the people at Brookings are tenured professors who don’t have much reason to worry about corporate pressure at all. And even the WSJ ,while its editorial page is very conservative, has plenty of hard-hitting stories in its news pages. I have even heard Noam Chomsky praise them once.

And in any case I disagree that the US political spectrum is much wider than the space between the NYT and the WSJ.I think most of the electorate (at least 80%) lies at or between the positions of the two papers on most issues. Sure you have parties like the Greens and the Libertarians but there is zero evidence that they have significant popular support.
“Corporate interests that own media outlets and buy advertising from them stand to make a good deal of money from trade liberalization, so naturally they are anxious to spread the word about this opinion”
What about corporations that stand to lose from trade liberalization. There are lots of them as well and they have powerful potential allies in the trade unions and the general public which always appears skeptical about free trade. In the 80’s and early 90’s you had a powerful movement which wanted “fair trade” ie protectionism which appeared to be winning the political battle.
In my reading of things it was centre-left intellectuals like Paul Krugman who helped stem that particular tide. If you only had conservative intellctuals supporting free trade I think it would be a much more powerful issue today.

“I don’t see much evidence for an emerging “intellectual consensus” on vouchers,…”
I used the words “straws in the wind”. I agree this is a standard partisan issue at the moment but I think there is the potential for a consensus here. In particular the fact that lots of poor blacks support this one makes it an issue where some people on the left and centre are at least willing to take an honest look at it.

December gives a good list of issues which intellectuals have pushed through without substantial corporate influence. I believe it was the case particularly for the racial and sexual issues that there was at least the appearance of consensus among intellectuals . It was only much later after these policies were enacted that you had conservative intellectuals trying to organize an opposition on some fronts with rather limited success.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
I’m a little puzzled as to how this relates to the present debate.

They’re examples of major policy changes in which intellectuals made a difference. I’m using “intellectual” to mean someone who contributes thoughts and ideas, but hasn’t the power to implement them.

Which of these changes are you asserting were significantly influenced (not just “promoted”) by the “united opinion” of “intellectuals”,

I assert that all of them were significantly influenced by intellectuals. (“united opinion” is not a phrase I would use.)

…and on what evidence?

Evidence – we don’ need no stinkin’ evidence!

Seriously, I’ll do my best to give a capsule answer attached to each item. Other posters are invited to contribute more background detail:

  1. Voting rights for minorities – various civil rights leaders and thinkers.

  2. School integration – same as #1

  3. Greater acceptance of gays – various gay rights groups

  4. Litigation explosion – legal scholars; in particular Chief Justice Roger Traynor of California in the 1950s or so

  5. Growth of home schooling – various Christian groups. There are also now hoome schooling support groups.

  6. Deterioration of inner city schools – see below

  7. Acceptance of unmarried parenthood – Hmmm? Can we regard the writers of Murphy Brown as intellectuals?

  8. Abortion rights – ACLU and women’s rights advocates

  9. Miranda warning and other legal reforms – ACLU and legal scholars

  10. Environmentalism – Sierra Club, various scientists

  11. Cessation of nuclear power plant construction – Various greenies

  12. Increased availability of higher education – People like Clark Kerr did a lot to make this happen. I presume that there were intellectual arguments that broad higher education was a good thing, although I don’t know the name of a group or of individuals.

  13. Reduced use of the death penalty – various philosophers adn pundits

  14. Growth in government regulation and spending – various believers in the value of government

  15. Medicare – various social thinkers

** And can you please tell me exactly which “particular intellectuals” went on record as advocating the deterioration of inner-city schools??? **

Kimstu, I think you know my answer, even though you don’t agree. IMHO various educational leaders have promoted a number of inferior methods, which have been particularly harmful to those students most in need of effective public school educaton. Diane Raivitch’s new book provides chapter and verse on which thinkers promoted and influenced which bad policy.

13

Well, december, I still think this is rather a digression from CP’s originally proposed debate topic that “intellectuals have influence only if they are sufficiently united on some issue”. You’re saying, apparently, that intellectuals can make a difference even if they’re not discernably united, but your assertions of significant influence are so vague and unsubstantiated that there doesn’t seem to be any real matter for debate. (Your definition of “intellectuals” also appears to be awfully vague and inclusive, embracing not only sitcom writers but “greenies”, “gay groups”, “believers in the value of government”, etc. At least CP sketched out a somewhat more definite category of semi-official “policy pundit”, a professional writer or academic with access to major media for expressing his/her views.)

As for your response to my question:

*“And can you please tell me exactly which ‘particular intellectuals’ went on record as advocating the deterioration of inner-city schools???”

[…] IMHO various educational leaders have promoted a number of inferior methods, which have been particularly harmful to those students most in need of effective public school educaton.*

Then I call foul. Ignoring the question of factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this claim, it’s clear that you are illegitimately trying to equate support for a particular policy with support for undesired effects that it turned out to produce. (For example, and just to get Godwin’s Law out of the way, it is not an acceptable debating tactic to say that because Neville Chamberlain originally advocated an appeasement policy that encouraged Hitler’s expansionism, he was therefore a supporter of Nazi genocide.) Please restrict your claims about “intellectual advocacy” for particular changes to the policies that the “intellectuals” themselves were intentionally advocating, not whatever social or political consequences you feel like asserting have resulted from those policies.

CP: December gives a good list of issues which intellectuals have pushed through without substantial corporate influence. I believe it was the case particularly for the racial and sexual issues that there was at least the appearance of consensus among intellectuals .

Again, it seems very strange to me to talk about homeschooling, environmentalism, and voting rights, just to name a few examples, as “issues” that “intellectuals have pushed through”, considering that there has been widespread public support for all of them. I’m afraid this debate is still lacking a decent yardstick for determining just how much independent influence “intellectuals” as a separate, autonomous group can be said to have on any particular issue.

14

Kimstu,
Decemeber is using a somewhat different definition of intellectual and I don’t agree with all his examples either including the ones you cite.

Where I agree with him is that in the 60’s and 70’s there was a substantial consensus among intellectuals on several issues and that helped push those issues beyond what public opinion necessarily wanted.

The restriction of the use of the death penalty is a good example in the sense that the public tends to be much more pro-death penalty.

Civil rights and affirmative action is another. I doubt there was overwhelming support for these among the general public. Brown v Board of Education was ahead of public opinion. I think it was a reflection of the fact that by the 50’s many intellectuals were uncomfortable with over racism in public laws. SC judges are both intellectuals in their own right and people who are influenced by the prevailing intellectual climate.
In general during that period the intellectual establishment was dominated by liberals. It was only in the 70’s that the neo-conservatives and other were able to begin to mount a counter-offensive which came to fruition in the next decade.

However they were only able to fight the liberals to a draw and not establish a consensus of their own. This is why I think despite the rhetoric the Reagan revolution was anything but a revolution. The government is roughly as large as it was in 1980. This is in sharp contrast to the rapid increases in government in the 60’s and other big changes like civil rights legislation.

This may also account for the fact that though the Reagan-Bush people got to appoint as many as 5 justices they haven’t been able to really reverse the judicial activism of previous decades.

15

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Well, december…You’re saying, apparently, that intellectuals can make a difference even if they’re not discernably united,

Yes. Well put. This seems relevant, although it disagrees somewhat with the OP.

… but your assertions of significant influence are so vague and unsubstantiated that there doesn’t seem to be any real matter for debate.

Whatever…

**Your definition of “intellectuals” also appears to be awfully vague and inclusive, embracing not only sitcom writers but “greenies”, “gay groups”, “believers in the value of government”, etc. At least CP sketched out a somewhat more definite category of semi-official “policy pundit”, a professional writer or academic with access to major media for expressing his/her views.)[b/]

Inclusive, yes, but not so vague. I’m arguing that intellectuals (those who contribute thoughts and ideas) have impact, even in they have no sort of organizational power – governmental, corporate, financial, union, etc.

Then I call foul. Ignoring the question of factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this claim, it’s clear that you are illegitimately trying to equate support for a particular policy with support for undesired effects that it turned out to produce. (For example, and just to get Godwin’s Law out of the way, it is not an acceptable debating tactic to say that because Neville Chamberlain originally advocated an appeasement policy that encouraged Hitler’s expansionism, he was therefore a supporter of Nazi genocide.) Please restrict your claims about “intellectual advocacy” for particular changes to the policies that the “intellectuals” themselves were intentionally advocating, not whatever social or political consequences you feel like asserting have resulted from those policies.

[hijack] A focus on unintended consequences is one of the things that differentiates conservatives from liberals (at least in the opinion of conservatives.) Since you’ve already invoked Godwin, let’s take your argument to the ridiculous limit. Should we excuse Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, because their goal was a better society? Obviously not.

If we agree FTSOA that a number of educational leaders instituted bad ideas, which have done great harm, then they deserve some blame. One could argue that their amount of blame is mitigated because of sincere good intentions. Maybe so. However, how should we feel about sincere, well-meaning people who murder abortion doctors? [/hijack]

16

december: If we agree FTSOA that a number of educational leaders instituted bad ideas, which have done great harm, then they deserve some blame.

[patiently] december, try to stay with me here. I am not at the moment arguing the question of whether educational leaders have advocated policies that have caused deterioration in schools, or whether they deserve blame if they have. I am merely saying that it is inaccurate and misleading to describe this as “advocating deterioration”, on a parallel with advocating “voting rights for minorities” or advocating “reduction in use of the death penalty.” We are talking on this thread about intellectual support for various specific policy changes, not consequences of those policy changes. I do not care at present what you consider the consequences of educational policy changes to be nor whom you consider to be responsible for them, I am merely asking you to be a little more careful about logical consistency in the wording of your posts. Okay?

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Well, december…You’re saying, apparently, that intellectuals can make a difference even if they’re not discernably united,

Yes. Well put. This seems relevant, although it disagrees somewhat with the OP.

… but your assertions of significant influence are so vague and unsubstantiated that there doesn’t seem to be any real matter for debate.

Whatever…

Your definition of “intellectuals” also appears to be awfully vague and inclusive, embracing not only sitcom writers but “greenies”, “gay groups”, “believers in the value of government”, etc. At least CP sketched out a somewhat more definite category of semi-official “policy pundit”, a professional writer or academic with access to major media for expressing his/her views.)

Inclusive, yes, but not so vague. I’m arguing that intellectuals (those who contribute thoughts and ideas) have impact, even in they have no sort of organizational power – governmental, corporate, financial, union, etc.

Then I call foul. Ignoring the question of factual accuracy or inaccuracy of this claim, it’s clear that you are illegitimately trying to equate support for a particular policy with support for undesired effects that it turned out to produce. (For example, and just to get Godwin’s Law out of the way, it is not an acceptable debating tactic to say that because Neville Chamberlain originally advocated an appeasement policy that encouraged Hitler’s expansionism, he was therefore a supporter of Nazi genocide.) Please restrict your claims about “intellectual advocacy” for particular changes to the policies that the “intellectuals” themselves were intentionally advocating, not whatever social or political consequences you feel like asserting have resulted from those policies.

[hijack] A focus on unintended consequences is one of the things that differentiates conservatives from liberals (at least in the opinion of conservatives.) Since you’ve already invoked Godwin, let’s take your argument to the ridiculous limit. Should we excuse Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, because their goal was a better society? Obviously not.

If we agree FTSOA that a number of educational leaders instituted bad ideas, which have done great harm, then they deserve some blame. One could argue that their amount of blame is mitigated because of sincere good intentions. Maybe so. However, how should we feel about sincere, well-meaning people who murder abortion doctors? [/hijack]

18

I’m afraid that this isn’t much of a debate – every policy originates from an idea by someone. And, by your definition of “intellectual” as “those who contribute thoughts and ideas”, however first dreams up the policy idea is an intellectual.
Hence, intellectuals are extremely influential - they are responsible for every policy enacted.

Sua

19

Um I think you are confusing thinking up an idea and being able to get it actually implemented.

Even if you believe that intellectuals are responsible for every single policy idea (which is not really true unless by definition) there still remains the question of why it is that certain ideas are implemented and others are not.

What I am interested in is the extent to which intellectuals influence this choice and I don’t think your point is particularly relevant or interesting.

20

Fair enough, Kimstu. I had in mind a number of specific policy changes, such as:

– Whole language reading method
– social promotion, as a means to avoid fixing education problems
– opposition to vouchers
– ineffective teacher training
– court decisions and administrative actions that reduce discipline
– too much focus on non-academics
– particular bad text books
– harm done by federal and state interference